Dimensionality and Measurement Invariance of the State-Trait Inventory for Cognitive and Somatic Anxiety (STICSA) and Validity Comparison With Measures of Negative Emotionality

Abstract

This study explored the factor structure of the State-Trait Inventory for Cognitive and Somatic Anxiety (STICSA) and measurement invariance between genders. We also measured concurrent and divergent validity of the STICSA as compared to the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). A sample of 1064 (N Females = 855) participants completed questionnaires, including measures of anxiety, depression, stress, positive and negative affect. Confirmatory factor analyses supported the original factor structure of the STICSA, which was invariant between genders. Overall, the STICSA had superior concurrent and divergent validity as compared to the STAI. The somatic subscales were also significantly less correlated with depression, and positive and negative affect. Further, the somatic, as compared to cognitive anxiety STICSA subscales were less correlated with depression. This suggests that the STICSA, especially the somatic anxiety subscales, might hold the key to distinguishing between different types of anxiety, as well as between anxiety and depression.

Multidimensional assessment of anxiety through the State-Trait Inventory for Cognitive and Somatic Anxiety (STICSA): From dimensionality to response prediction across emotional contexts

“…The difference in the levels of association between both cognitive (>.75) and somatic (.45 - .51) dimensions and the STAI state and trait scores highlights the newness and relevance of the somatic subscales of STICSA. Our results, in line with the previous literature [ 17 , 18 ], thus suggested that STAI is a more specific measure of cognitive anxiety, while STICSA opens the possibility of evaluating anxiety in a more comprehensive fashion, i.e., in a multidimensional perspective. Nevertheless, although STICSA aims to provide a better differentiation between anxiety and depression, our results do not fully support the achievement of this goal.…”

“…The multi-group CFA performed in the present study supported the equivalence of the underlying structures between groups regarding sex (males vs. females) for STICSA’s scale interpretation, at the level of metric invariance, which adds further strength to the quality of this measure and reinforces the confidence in comparing the latent variable scores across groups. A similar result regarding measurement invariance across sex was reported by past studies [ 18 , 19 ]. The intercepts (the means) differ between the groups, which reinforces the expected sex differences [ 42 ], maintaining the good characteristics of the STICSA regarding the factorial structure and its loadings, although not its intercepts.…”

“…Dimensionality was also established by estimating separate models, namely a two-factor model for state [ 13 , 17 – 20 ] and trait forms [ 13 , 17 – 21 ]. Furthermore, studies of measurement invariance across gender and age groups [ 18 , 19 ], as well as a multi-method approach with an informant within friendship dyads of trait anxiety [ 21 ], gave further support for the quality of the STICSA measurement. Previous studies have also revealed good convergent and nomological validity [ 13 , 16 – 19 , 22 ].…”

“…Previous studies have also revealed good convergent and nomological validity [ 13 , 16 – 19 , 22 ]. Nevertheless, STICSA evidenced medium to high correlations with depression measures (r = .42 - .67), especially when considering the correlation with cognitive anxiety (r > .48; [ 16 , 18 , 22 ]), despite of being better at discriminating anxiety from depression in comparison with, for instance, the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI; [ 11 ]), an instrument broadly used to measure anxiety in its state and trait dimensions (e.g., [ 16 ]). STICSA has been proven to be, therefore, a suitable instrument to measure anxiety in general and clinical populations, but it is necessary to extend its psychometric studies to better characterize the instrument’s factor structure, validity, and its adequacy across cultures and settings.…”

Can negative emotions increase students’ plagiarism and cheating?

“…We would like to thank the anonymous students who participated in our studies. Some data collected from the same sample of participants in the larger questionnaire they completed for Study 1 are published in Tindall and Curtis (2020) and Tindall et al (2021). Some data collected from the same sample of participants in the larger questionnaire they completed for Study 2 is published in .…”